Design principles for hybrid learning configurations …...ORIGINAL PAPER Design principles for...

ORI GIN AL PA PER

Design principles for hybrid learning configurationsat the interface between school and workplace

Petra H. M. Cremers1 • Arjen E. J. Wals2 • Renate Wesselink2 •

Martin Mulder2

Received: 26 September 2014 / Accepted: 4 May 2016 / Published online: 23 May 2016� The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract In today’s knowledge society, there is a demand for professionals who are able

to create knowledge across boundaries of disciplines, professions and perspectives. Tra-

ditional universities, universities of applied sciences and institutions for vocational edu-

cation are all challenged to educate these knowledge workers. Accordingly, these

institutions are developing competence-based education programmes that promote

authentic, self-directed learning and the development of a professional identity. A possible

environment for realising this type of learning is the hybrid learning configuration in which

learning is embedded in ill-defined and highly-authentic tasks. This study attempted to

identify a set of principles that can underpin the design of such a learning configuration at

the interface between school and workplace. The research approach consisted of educa-

tional design research. Starting from cognitive constructivist and socio-cultural perspec-

tives, a set of initial design principles was developed and evaluated from the perspective of

the participants during three consecutive iterations of design and implementation. The

process resulted in a set of seven refined design principles which can be used as heuristics

to guide the design and development of hybrid learning configurations in contexts that have

similar goals and aligned tenets.

Keywords Authentic learning � Educational design research � Hybrid learning

configuration � University of applied sciences � Vocational education

& Petra H. M. [email protected]

1 Staff Office Education and Applied Research, Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen,P.O. Box 30030, 9700 RM Groningen, The Netherlands

2 Education and Competence Studies, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8130,6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands

123

Learning Environ Res (2016) 19:309–334DOI 10.1007/s10984-016-9209-6

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10984-016-9209-6&domain=pdf

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10984-016-9209-6&domain=pdf

Introduction

In today’s knowledge society (Hargreaves 2003), there is a demand for professionals who

are able to create knowledge collaboratively across boundaries of disciplines, professions

and perspectives (Engestrom 1999; Paavola et al. 2004). Traditional universities, institu-

tions for postsecondary vocational education and universities of applied sciences are all

challenged to educate these ‘knowledge workers’ (Kessels 2001).

Accordingly, these institutions have developed competence-based study programmes

that are intended to facilitate the development of comprehensive vocational competence.

Many researchers claim that effective competence-based education should promote self-

directed and authentic learning both within and beyond the workplace (e.g. De Bruijn and

Leeman 2010; Wesselink et al. 2010). In addition, by participating in a working com-

munity, students are given the opportunity to develop a professional identity (Billett and

Somerville 2004; De Bruijn and Leeman 2010).

Because some features of a working practice cannot be experienced or practised

exclusively in a school environment (Billett 2002), most programmes in vocational edu-

cation offer students workplace experience, for instance by incorporating internships into

their curriculum. Billett (2002) and Poortman (2007), however, claim that participation in a

workplace setting has certain limitations and does not always facilitate effective learning.

Educational institutions have addressed these limitations by improved connectivity

between school and workplace (Tynjala 2009). In this way, they seek to bridge the gap

between both theory and practice and on-campus and off campus learning. Examples of

such ‘cooperative education strategies’ (Zegwaard and Coll 2011) are the connective

model of work experience (Guile and Griffiths 2001) which provides a new curriculum

framework that can take work in all its forms as the basis for the development of

knowledge, skills and identity, and the integrative pedagogy model (Tynjala 2008) which

connects conceptual theoretical, practical and self-regulative knowledge.

In this study, we were interested in connecting school-based learning and work expe-

rience by interweaving learning and working processes in one setting: the so-called ‘hybrid

learning configuration’. Wals, Lans and Kupper (2012) define a hybrid learning configu-

ration (HLC) as a social practice around ill-defined, authentic tasks or issues whose res-

olution requires transboundary learning (e.g. by transcending disciplines, traditional

structures and sectors, and forms of learning). We focus on HLCs that are situated at the

interface between school and workplace in which working and learning are integrated as

students work on assignments from clients or other stakeholders in the community

(Huisman et al. 2010; Zitter 2010; Zitter and Hoeve 2012).

HLCs share characteristics with ‘context-based learning environments’ (de Putter-Smits

et al. 2013), ‘powerful learning environments’ (De Bruijn and Leeman 2010) and ‘au-

thentic learning environments’ (Herrington and Oliver 2000) in the sense that they seek to

promote self-directed and authentic learning and the development of a professional

identity.

Although there is a growing body of mostly conceptual literature emphasising the

importance of hybrid learning, there have not been many empirical studies of the design

and implementation of such learning. The goal of this study was to fill this lacuna by

identifying a set of principles that can underpin the design of HLCs.

An educational design project called Value in the Valley provided the context for this

study. In this project, a learning environment was developed that had the characteristics of

a HLC at the interface between school and workplace. The participants came from four

310 Learning Environ Res (2016) 19:309–334

123

different educational institutions and two companies. The students’ learning was supported

as they were tasked with solving complex problems related to sustainability issues for

clients in the community (ill-defined authentic tasks that require transboundary learning).

In the next section, we describe this project in detail. In the following sections, we

explain the educational design research (EDR) approach that was adopted and address the

main research stages. Finally, we discuss conclusions drawn from the research.

Research context: value in the Valley

The educational design project Value in the Valley was initiated by two Dutch institutions

for senior-secondary vocational educational (which are called ‘MBO’ in Dutch) and two

universities of applied sciences (‘HBO’ in Dutch) in collaboration with two companies.

The project aimed to address an increasing demand from industry and business for pro-

fessionals who are able to contribute to sustainability-driven multidisciplinary and multi-

sector innovations. The somewhat vague term ‘sustainability-driven’ refers to innovations

seeking to develop business models, processes and products that are more capable in

balancing ecological, environmental, ethical and socioeconomic interests than those they

seek to modify or replace. Conventional study programmes (at MBO and HBO levels) are

typically not aimed at educating this kind of knowledge worker. Questions to be addressed

in the project were: ‘‘How should a learning configuration be designed and implemented so

that it contributes effectively and efficiently to the development of capable and innovative

professionals?’’ and ‘‘How can this configuration (or parts of it) be implemented in other

educational institutions or other organisations?’’ (Antonides and Hoetink 2005).

In order to answer the first question, an HLC was designed, implemented and evaluated

in six iterations of one semester each. The learning configuration represented an authentic

working context in the sense that it functioned as a consultancy firm in which assignments

were carried out for companies and governmental institutions in the region. It was located

at a business park. Students from the participating schools were the junior employees. The

faculty, lecturers and educational consultants from the participating educational institu-

tions, as well as employees from the participating companies, acted as the senior

employees. They coached, instructed and guided the students while they worked on the

assignments. Most of the faculty worked part time at the Value in the Valley project and

spent the rest of their time at their own educational institution or their company.

Participants included students enrolled in several different study programmes, mostly

from the technical and ‘green’ (e.g. agricultural, environmental, land-use planning) sectors

in MBO and HBO. The number of students varied in each iteration and ranged from 15 to

35. The students worked in multidisciplinary and ‘multi-level’ (MBO and HBO) teams on

real-life assignments that involved issues of sustainability. For example, in the ‘Sustainable

village’ assignment, a step-by-step strategy was developed for villages to become a sus-

tainable community and, in the ‘Rain in Groningen’ assignment, ideas were developed for

the temporary storage of excessive rain that is predicted in local climate change scenarios.

Students spent one semester at Value in the Valley, with the programme replacing a part

of their regular curriculum (e.g. an internship or regular course). The faculty performed

formative assessments at regular times during the semester. The summative assessment and

assignment of study credits were conducted by lecturers within the students’ own study

programme.

Learning Environ Res (2016) 19:309–334 311

123

Educational design research

The research approach chosen for this study was EDR. Design research is especially useful

when existing knowledge about a certain phenomenon is wanting as is often the case with

highly innovative curriculum improvement initiatives (McKenney and Reeves 2012).

The research project started from a problem in educational practice. This problem was

analysed and a tentative solution was designed that combined existing theory, practical

knowledge and experience (craft wisdom) and creative inspiration (McKenney and Reeves

2012). This solution was implemented in practice and evaluated in three iterations.

The theoretical output of this study takes the form of an empirically tested set of design

principles or heuristics that can be used to guide endeavours that have similar goals and

aligned tenets (McKenney and Reeves 2012). Sandoval (2014) refers to design principles

as ‘high-level conjectures’ which are reified in features of the learning environment design.

Design principles can be theory-driven or constructed inductively from empirical findings

(Lakkala et al. 2012).

Design research can be characterised as interventionist, iterative, process oriented,

utility oriented and theory oriented (Van den Akker et al. 2006). It is not aimed at mea-

suring isolated variables but at capturing integral and meaningful phenomena in a natu-

ralistic setting. In this study, only one manifestation of a certain phenomenon, namely, an

HLC, was studied. Therefore, it contributes theoretical understanding that is closely tied to

the problem at hand, thereby yielding ‘local theory’ (McKenney and Reeves 2012).

Consequently, this study did not strive for context-free generalisations: ‘‘Design principles

are not intended as recipes for success, but to help others select and apply the most

appropriate substantive and procedural knowledge for specific design and development

tasks in their own settings’’ (McKenney et al. 2006, p. 73).

In order to describe the EDR approach used in this study, a model was created (see

Fig. 1) that combines relevant features of existing models by Andriessen (2007), Wals and

Alblas (1997) and McKenney and Reeves (2012). Four main stages can be discerned in the

model. They were carried out as follows:

Fig. 1 Model for educational design research based on Andriessen (2007), McKenney and Reeves (2012)and Wals and Alblas (1997)


123

1. Diagnosing and agenda setting. The problem in practice that was derived from the

project plan was translated into the research question and the formulation of desired

outcomes or learning processes.

2. Analysis and exploration. Researcher and practitioners collaboratively developed a

conceptual framework that underpinned the design of the learning configuration. Craft

knowledge from experienced practitioners was elicited and a literature search was

conducted. This resulted in a set of initial design principles.

3. Design, implementation and evaluation. For this study, three iterations of the learning

configuration were evaluated in order to explore how, from the perspective of the

participants, the initial design principles manifested themselves in practice. Design

principles become more useful for designers when they are connected with features that

exemplify how the principles can be applied in different contexts (Kali 2006). Therefore

the manifestation of each design principle was described in terms of these features and

their effects on the participants. This resulted in a set of refined design principles.

4. Developing knowledge. The research question was answered by drawing conclusions

from the manifestations of the refined design principles, thus linking their enactment to

the desired learning processes. What follows is a detailed description of all four stages

of this research approach.

Stage I: diagnosing and agenda setting

According to the project plan (Antonides and Hoetink 2005), the objectives of Value in the

Valley were of a very practical nature (reflecting the practice stream; see Fig. 1):

• an effective and efficient learning configuration that educates innovative, sustainability

professionals (see also Wierenga et al. 2010),

• professional development of the participating faculty,

• design briefs, concepts, models, tools and instruments to be used for implementation in

other contexts.

Based on this last objective, the project team and the researcher chose to develop a set

of theory- and practice-based design principles for the HLC and formulated the central

research question in the knowledge stream (Fig. 1): ‘‘Which set of principles can underpin

the design of a hybrid learning configuration for educating the knowledge worker?’’

A further operationalisation of the ‘HLC for the knowledge worker’ can be expressed by taking

into account the learning processes that it is intended to trigger. As described in the introduction,

the HLC seeks to enable self-directed learning, authentic learning and the development of a

professional identity. In addition, it is aimed at educating knowledge workers, who create new

knowledge collaboratively across the boundaries of disciplines, professions and perspectives.

Stage II: developing initial design principles

The objective of this phase was to develop a set of initial design principles. First we

introduce the method used to develop these principles. Next, we present the conceptual

framework underlying the design, which can be viewed as the ‘epistemology of the

designers’ or the designers’ perspective on learning (Kali et al. 2009). We conclude by

describing how the design principles were derived from this framework, which links them

to the key concept(s) that they represent.


123

Method

The initial design principles were developed collaboratively by the researcher and the Value in

the Valley faculty consisting of lecturers, educational consultants and business representatives.

Because of this collaborative approach, we were able to draw on expertise and knowledge from

both an educational and a business perspective (Konings et al. 2007). An additional benefit of

this approach is that the practitioners’ involvement in the design encouraged their agency in the

implementation of the designed intervention (i.e. the HLC) (Bronkhorst et al. 2013).

The method used to arrive at a set of initial design principles consisted of the con-

struction of a conceptual framework from which the principles could be derived. This was

accomplished by eliciting craft knowledge from experienced practitioners and by a liter-

ature search. Because the HLC aimed to interweave working and learning processes,

existing literature on work-based learning and educational theory was studied. This was

combined with and validated by personal experiences and observations in educational and

working practice by the Value in the Valley faculty. External educational experts were also

consulted, and two educational researchers who were not involved in the project were

asked to comment on the initial design principles. Their questioning of the exact meaning

of each principle led to a more-detailed and more-focused description of the principles.

This description was confirmed and approved of by Value in the Valley faculty. By the end

of iteration 3 of the HLC, a set of nine initial design principles had emerged.

Internal validity or a high ‘truth value’ (Guba 1981) was ensured by reaching consensus

among the Value in the Valley faculty about the set of initial principles. External validity

was enhanced by consulting external experts (e.g. from educational consultancy firms)

during the development of the initial design principles and by involving external educa-

tional researchers.

Conceptual framework

One central function of the conceptual framework was to underpin the integration of

educational and working activities. In order to do justice to each of the worlds of education

and work, both cognitive constructivist and socio-cultural perspectives on learning were

taken. The cognitive constructivist point of view emphasises the active role of the student

and the integration of theoretical and practical knowledge (Bromme and Tillema 1995;

Tynjala 1999). From the point of view of socio-cultural and situated learning theories, it is

important that education involves students in authentic practices and social interaction

(Brown et al. 1989; Lave and Wenger 1991).

Sfard (1998) introduces two metaphors of learning that relate to these points of view.

The acquisition metaphor refers to an individual’s cognitive knowledge construction,

whereas the participation metaphor refers to the socio-cultural view of learning. These

metaphors are both helpful in coming to understand and support learning processes, and

they can be seen as complementary (Billett 1996; Sfard 1998). Thus, Sfard’s metaphors

constitute a promising framework in which to develop expertise at the interface of edu-

cation and work (Tynjala et al. 2003).

This framework has been further developed by Illeris (2002), whose model integrates

the two learning metaphors as the processes of acquisition and interaction that take place

within the following three dimensions of learning: content, incentive and environment. The

content dimension concerns what is learned and how meaning is given. The incentive

dimension involves motivation, emotion and volition. The environment dimension, which


123

is also called the ‘interaction dimension’, is characterised by action, communication and

cooperation within relevant social contexts and communities. These three dimensions

‘‘…must always be considered if an analysis or an understanding of a learning situation is

to be adequate’’ (Illeris 2002, p. 25).

The acquisition and participation metaphors (Sfard 1998) and the three dimensions of

learning—cognition, incentive and environment (Illeris 2002)—were the starting points for

the development of the initial design principles in this study.

Design framework

The design framework was developed via further elaboration of the conceptual framework.

This resulted in the set of nine initial design principles summarized in Table 1.

Within the participation metaphor, the concepts of ‘situated learning’ (Lave and Wenger

1991) and ‘situated cognition’ (Brown et al. 1989) refer to the importance of an authentic

context for learning. Many researchers emphasise the importance of engagement in

authentic practice in vocational education programmes in order to develop the students’

occupational capacities (e.g. Billett 2011). Hence the first design principle is fostering

authenticity.

The participation metaphor is also reflected in the concepts of the knowledge-building

community and the community of learners (Brown and Campione 1996; Rogoff et al. 1996;

Scardamalia and Bereiter 1993). Lave and Wenger (1991) suggest that learning through work

experience often occurs by participating in a ‘community of practice’ in which individuals

learn through contact with more-experienced others. Within a community of learners, both

experienced and less-experienced participants have active roles, and learning becomes a

shared endeavour. According to Rogoff et al. (1996), participants in such a learning com-

munity appear to take responsibility both for managing their own learning and for supporting

and leading others. Hence the second principle is creating a learning community.

Learning from participation in a workplace setting depends both on the extent to which

opportunities for participation (i.e. affordance) are provided and the extent to which indi-

viduals choose to utilise these opportunities (i.e. agency) (Billett 2004). Etelapelto et al.

(2013) argue that both active participation and agency at work are prerequisites for workers

to become creative lifelong learners who actively develop work practices with colleagues.

Billett (2011) uses the term ‘agentic learners’ in this respect. Therefore students should

develop a sense of responsibility for themselves and their environment as they gradually

take more ownership. This was captured in the third principle: increasing ownership.

The ability of the knowledge worker to solve problems in an interdisciplinary context

should be reflected in the learning configuration. Gibbons et al. (1997) refer to this as ‘Mode

2 knowledge production’, which is context-driven, problem-focused and interdisciplinary.

Guile and Griffiths (2001) argue that workers are increasingly expected to be competent

‘boundary crossers’. Walker and Nocon (2007, p. 181) describe ‘boundary-crossing com-

petence’ as the ‘‘ability to manage and integrate multiple, divergent discourses and practices

across social boundaries.’’ According to Akkerman and Bakker (2011), boundary crossing

requires not only the ability to understand and learn from each other’s perspectives, but also

the capability to effectively transform practices and perspectives. This transformation

involves a creative process of building new knowledge, referred to by Sawyer (2004) as

‘collaborative emergence’. The importance of making optimal use of different practices and

perspectives was expressed in the fourth design principle: utilising diversity.

According to Kessels (2001), an authentic working environment for knowledge workers

should enhance and support learning processes. Along these lines, Tynjala (2008) proposes


123

that learning environments should be created in which conceptual, practical and self-

regulative knowledge are present and become interconnected. However, as Griffiths and

Guile (2003) argue, learners should be assisted in the process of connecting knowledge,

skills and experience. Billett (2002, p. 29) confirms this by suggesting that ‘‘the use of

intentional guided learning strategies has demonstrated a capacity to augment the contri-

butions of everyday experiences by making accessible and developing understanding and

procedures that are unlikely to be learned alone’’. The corresponding fifth principle is inter-

linking of working and learning.

A relevant theory within the cognitive dimension of learning (Illeris 2002) is the concept of

learning by both participating in authentic activities and reflecting on them. This is captured in

Kolb’s reflective cycle (Kolb 1984) and Schon’s notion of the ‘reflective practitioner’ (Schon

1987). In more recent models for improving connectivity between school-based and work-

based learning, reflection is linked to the integration of practical and theoretical knowledge

(e.g. Tynjala 2008; Guile and Griffiths 2001). Given the situated nature of work-based

learning, learners should be supported in the process of analysing their own experiences and

arriving at a critical understanding of their reality (Guile and Griffiths 2001). On the basis of

these notions, the sixth principle was formulated as facilitating reflection.

The incentive dimension of learning (Illeris 2002) can be related to Damasio’s research into

the role of emotions in social cognition and decision-making (Damasio 1994). It can be assumed

that positive emotions foster self-regulation (Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2012) and

enhance the development of a vocational identity by the learner (Meijers and Wardekker 2001).

Strauser et al. (2008) found a positive effect of psychological well-being on the development of

a vocational identity which they described as the process through which individuals become

aware of their career interests, goals, skills and talents. This supports the notion that the

individual talents, interests and motivations of each student are important for their professional

development and would have to be addressed explicitly within the learning configuration. This

notion was expressed in the seventh principle: enhancing individual talents.

The eighth principle relates to assessment considered as an important part of the

learning process. Many researchers state that assessment methods should support and

enhance students’ learning (Gibbs and Simpson 2004; Tynjala et al. 2003). They argue that

students should receive formative assessments at regular times during the learning period,

instead of receiving only a summative assessment at the end of the learning period. Van

Merrienboer and Sluijsmans (2009) propose that regular provision of feedback and ‘feed

forward’, or reflection and ‘preflection’, can enhance self-directed learning. Boud (2007,

p. 21) claims that assessment should be focused on ‘‘monitoring one’s own performance, to

see one’s own learning in the context in which it is deployed and to respond with

awareness of the exigencies of the tasks in which one is engaged’’. This idea was captured

in the eighth principle of assessing for learning. (This term was inspired by Mentkowski,

Doherty, Loacker, Hart, Richards, O’Brien (…) and Cromwell 2000.)

A final, more-overarching principle emerged after considering the other eight. In order

for all of the other principles to apply, the learning configuration must have an organi-

sational structure that supports the inter-linked working and learning processes. Concepts

of the learning organisation (Senge 1990) or the ‘hybrid organisation’ (Nonaka and

Takeuchi 1995) inspired the ninth design principle, which is called enabling organisation.

Initial design principles

In Table 1, the initial design principles are described and examples of their manifestations

in practice are given.


123

Table 1 Initial design principles, descriptions and manifestations

Designprinciple—keyconcept

Design principle—description

Examples of manifestationswithin the learningconfiguration

Conceptual grounding

1. Fosteringauthenticity

Participants work and learnin an environment(context, tasks, activities,roles andcommunication) thatreflects working practice,a professional workingculture and organisation

Working for real clientsfrom industry and otherorganisations

Billett (2011); Brown et al.(1989); Lave and Wenger(1991)

Students, educators,consultants and expertsfrom working practice areseen as employees andrelate to each other as(junior and senior)colleagues

2. Creating alearningcommunity

Community: Everymember shouldexperience a sense ofbelonging to thecommunity

Learner equity: Everymember of thecommunity is a learner,each at his/her own level

A culture of respect,equality and curiositythat stimulates learning isfostered

Brown and Campione(1996); Illeris (2002);Lave and Wenger (1991);Rogoff et al. (1996);Scardamalia and Bereiter(1993)

Learning trajectories forjunior and seniorparticipants are similarand run parallel

Members participate incommunities that includeexperts and professionals

3. Increasingownership

Participants areincreasingly responsiblefor their own learning,functioning, personalwell-being and give-and-take. Reciprocity ininformation exchangeand effort

Learners work onassignments of increasingcomplexity

Billett (2004, 2011);Etelapelto et al. (2013)

Senior and juniorparticipants share theresponsibility for thephysical and socialworking environment

4. Utilisingdiversity

Diversity is built-in, valuedand utilised both at teamand organisational levelsand in internal andexternal networks

Multidisciplinary teamscollaborate with peersand are informed byinternal and externalexperts

Akkerman and Bakker(2011); Gibbons et al.(1997); Guile andGriffiths (2001); Sawyer(2004); Walker andNocon (2007)Senior participants from

different companies,study programmes andeducational levelscollaborate in the design,implementation andevaluation of the learningconfiguration

Assignments from clientsrequire aninterdisciplinaryapproach that matchesthe disciplines of theteam members


123

Table 1 continued

Designprinciple—keyconcept

Design principle—description

Examples of manifestationswithin the learningconfiguration

Conceptual grounding

5. Inter-linkingof workingand learning

Participants learn byperforming real tasksfrom practice. They aresupported by educationalinterventions that areattuned to the task and tothe individual learner,inter-linking working andlearning

Assignments are authentic,in most cases ill-structured and non-routine

Billett (2002); Griffiths andGuile (2003); Kessels(2001); Tynjala (2008)

Supportive information isto-the-point and timely

Coaching is provided atcritical times, to groupsor individuals

6. Facilitatingreflection

Participants learn byreflection on tasks andexperiences as a person,as a team and as anorganisation

Critical events in theworking activities are thestarting point forreflection and learning

Development of reflectiveskills is facilitated

Guile and Griffiths (2001);Illeris (2002); Kolb(1984); Schon (1987);Tynjala (2008)

‘Lessons learned’ areformulated at criticaltimes

Peer feedback and/or groupcounselling sessions arefacilitated

7. Enhancingindividualtalents

Explicit attention is givento participants’personality,characteristics, interests,motivation and talents.The development of aprofessional identity is agoal

Assignments align withpersonal interest and thelearners’ motivation

Damasio (1994); Illeris(2002); Meijers andWardekker (2001);Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia (2012); Strauseret al. (2008)

Participants’ characteristicsand personality are madeexplicit

8. Assessing forlearning

Feedback and formativeassessment of individualpersonal and professionaldevelopment areprovided at regular timesduring the learning period

Learning goals andlearning results emergefrom reflection onexperiences andcomparing oneself to theprofessional profile of anexpert

Boud (2007); Gibbs andSimpson (2004);Mentkowski et al. (2000);Tynjala et al. (2003); VanMerrienboer andSluijsmans (2009)

Regular individualcoaching on theprogression of learning isoffered

9. Enablingorganisation

The organisationalstructure and culturesupports the workingprocess, knowledgecreation and sharing atevery level (individual,team, organisation,society)

Junior and seniorparticipants share thephysical working space

Nonaka and Takeuchi(1995); Senge (1990)

Knowledge products aresaved, documented andutilised in further projectsor activities

Activities and proceduresallow for sharing ofknowledge andexperiences


123

Stage III: evaluation

The goal of this stage was to test both the pragmatic justification for the design principles

and the completeness of the set of principles (McKenney and Reeves 2012). In line with

Van den Akker’s (2003) categorisation of curricula, the design principles and the corre-

sponding design of the learning configuration can be seen as the intended curriculum,

which is understood as the vision or basic philosophy underlying a curriculum. When

evaluating the principles in practice, we can only work with the implemented curriculum—

the way in which the curriculum is actually used in practice—and the attained curriculum,

which is the curriculum as perceived or experienced by the participants.

Therefore we took the perspective of the participants and explored the questions of how,

and to what extent, the initial design principles manifested themselves in practice. In

addition, we were interested in effects of these manifestations on the participants and

conditions under which these effects appeared. We also looked for possible new design

principles that were perceived but not made explicit in the design framework. This resulted

in a set of refined design principles. In summary, the relevant questions in this stage were:

• How and to what extent do the design principles manifest themselves in practice, as

perceived by the participants of the learning configuration (students and faculty)?

• What are perceived features of the design principles, which effects of these features are

reported and which conditions are mentioned under which these effects appeared?

• To what extent do new principles emerge?

Data were collected from iterations 4, 5 and 6 during this stage.

Method

Because we were interested in participants’ experiences, we chose a qualitative research

method. Semi-structured interviews with students and staff were carried out in iterations 4,

5 and 6. The interviews were aimed at eliciting the experience of the participants, or the

attained curriculum. In order to avoid any bias towards the implemented curriculum, the

design principles and features that were explicitly implemented by the designers were not

presented to the interviewees. This gave the interviews a very open character.

Data collection

In the fourth iteration, four students (out of 22) and five faculty (out of 12) were inter-

viewed about how they experienced participating in the learning configuration and what

they had learned. In iteration 5, four students (of 17) were interviewed in a similar way.

The duration of the interviews was between 45 min and an hour.

At the end of iteration 6, nine students (out of 10) were interviewed as a group, because

student interaction might result in increased elaboration and discussion (Frey and Fontana

1991). Topics included differences between this learning configuration and ‘school’, dif-

ferent ways of teaching and learning, the physical setting, and what was gained by par-

ticipating in the HLC. Two researchers, one of whom was external to the HLC, carried out

this interview. The duration was approximately 2 h including a short break.

All 11 faculty members were interviewed individually. They were expected (based on

observations by the researcher) to speak more freely in an individual interview setting than

in a group setting. They were asked to prepare for the interview by creating an image of the


123

learning environment with themselves in it. This was the starting point for the interview.

The focus was on how participants experienced working within this learning configuration

and what they considered to be its strengths and weaknesses. At the end of these inter-

views, the faculty were asked to reflect on the nine initial design principles. The duration of

these interviews varied from 1 h to 90 min.

Participant selection

In order to maximise the range of information uncovered, interviewees were selected who

represented the diversity of the group (Guba 1981). Students interviewed in iterations 4 and

5 came from both educational levels (MBO and HBO) and from both technical and

agricultural study programmes. Business and education faculty were represented in iter-

ation 4. The four interviewed lecturers included representatives from both MBO and HBO

levels and both technical and agricultural study programmes.

In iteration 6, all students (except for one) and faculty were interviewed. This way, all

participants, faculty and students were given a voice from their own perspective (Brooker

and Macdonald 1999). The educational consultants, project manager and secretary were

also interviewed. Table 2 provides an overview of the interviewees in iterations 4–6.

Data analysis

Data were analysed in three steps, as is shown in the overview of methods used in the four

stages of EDR (Fig. 2). First, all the interviews were recorded and transcribed. Second, the

interviews were all coded according to the initial design principles (concept-driven coding,

Gibbs 2007). Possible new principles were coded in vivo (open coding, Gibbs 2007). At

the same time (within the codes for each principle), the various manifestations of a

principle were coded as a feature of that principle via the method of constant comparison

(Gibbs 2007). For instance, a feature of the principle ‘fostering authenticity’ appeared to be

‘being seen as a company (and not as a school) by the outside world’. If participants

mentioned an effect of the feature or a condition under which this effect appeared, this was

coded as well. This resulted in lists of quotes for each distinct feature of the design

principles.

Third, we determined for each feature its effects and conditions (as far as the data

showed). Similar quotes were summarised into one description in order to reduce data. For

Table 2 Interviewees per iteration

Iteration Interviewees Characteristics

4 4 students(individual)

Students represented 4 different fields of study and two education levels(MBO and HBO)

5 faculty(individual)

Faculty representing business (1) and education (4: 3 fields of study and twoeducational levels)

5 4 students(individual)

Students represented 4 different fields of study and two education levels(MBO and HBO)

6 9 students(group)

All students (save for one) were interviewed

11 faculty(individual)

Every faculty member was interviewed


123

instance, for the principle ‘utilising diversity’, a feature was summarised as ‘explaining to

others’. This was a summary of six similar quotes from students that concerned the need to

explain their knowledge to others in their team, such as: ‘‘You have to make sure the whole

group knows what it is about’’; ‘‘I have to explain my expertise step by step’’; ‘‘I could

teach the others about building construction’’, and so on. Respondents sometimes men-

tioned an effect, such as ‘‘If you explain it, you understand it better yourself’’. The fol-

lowing condition was mentioned ‘‘… because we knew well that everyone had to input

their knowledge into the project’’.

Validity and trustworthiness

Several measures were taken in order to increase the trustworthiness of this study. The

coding process was documented in ATLAS-ti. Memos were created for any decisions and

dilemmas encountered during coding. A code book and research log were also created. The

coding process and the analysis and summary of features were reviewed by another

researcher who was not involved in this research. This rigour in coding and the check by a

peer researcher (intersubjectivity) is likely to diminish the likelihood of researcher bias and

enhance transparency or ‘trackability’ (Gravemeijer and Cobb 2006).

In order to paint as truthful a picture as possible (ecological validity), every participant’s

perspective was included in the data (Brooker and Macdonald 1999). In addition, every

distinguished feature was included in the findings regardless of the number of respondents

who brought it up. This was done because, in the words of Eisner (1991, p. 103), ‘‘…[e]very particular is also a sample of a larger class. In this sense, what has been learned

Fig. 2 Overview of methods used in EDR stages


123

about a particular can have relevance for the class to which it belongs. The theme

embedded in the particular situation, extends beyond the situation itself’’. In a similar vein,

Wals (1994, pp. 231–232) says: ‘‘Hence, what one learns about one student’s or a small

group of students’ thinking […] can raise one’s consciousness of features that might be

found among other students.’’ Thus, the data are not a general consensus among partici-

pants but rather a collection of experiences.

The researcher was part of the learning configuration’s project team. An advantage of

being involved in the practice that is being researched is that the researcher can develop an

understanding of and familiarity with the participants, their language and culture (Herr and

Anderson 2005). Being familiar to the interviewees, however, could also diminish the

validity of the interview data. Having participated in the learning configuration’s design

and implementation, it is possible for the researcher and the faculty to become biased in a

positive way towards the learning configuration. (Herr and Anderson 2005). The researcher

attempted to avoid this bias by asking open, non-suggestive questions in the interviews

(Rubin and Rubin 2006), by always trying to focus on both negative and positive expe-

riences of the participants, and by reflecting from time to time on what was being said. This

‘learning attitude’ by the researcher is likely to allow room for the respondents’ agency,

which would undo or at least combat researcher bias (Savin-Baden and Howell Major

2010). Quotes from three of the interviewees indicated such agency in the sense that they

obtained new insights by reflecting on the learning configuration during the interview. In

addition, the raw interview data were anonymised and treated confidentially. The fact that

the researcher was not involved in assessing the students’ learning outcomes probably

enabled students to be honest and feel free to speak their mind.

Findings

In this section, we present the key findings. First, we describe the extent to which the

design principles could be recognised in quotes by the students and faculty in the learning

configuration. Next, we present the refined design principles as a set of tables that represent

the features themselves, their effects and conditions. Last, we discuss new design princi-

ples and features that seem to emerge from the data.

Design principles in practice

The participants’ quotes related to features of all nine design principles, though certain

principles appeared more frequently than others. ‘Creating a learning community’ (19 % of

596 total quotes), ‘inter-linking working and learning’ (19 %) and ‘fostering authenticity’

(18 %) appeared most often in the interviews, followed by ‘utilising diversity’ and ‘en-

abling organisation’ (each 14 %). ‘Assessing for learning’ (7 %), ‘facilitating reflection’

(5 %), ‘increasing ownership’ (3 %) and ‘enhancing individual talents’ (1 %) were less

prominent. Comments on ‘enabling organisation’ were mentioned almost exclusively by

faculty.

Design principles refined

During the coding process, it became clear that the principles ‘facilitating reflection’,

‘enhancing individual talents’ and ‘assessing for learning’ seemed to overlap. Their fea-

tures and the relevant quotes all seemed to relate to one another and to each of the three


123

principles. After reconsidering the theoretical underpinnings of these initial design prin-

ciples (Stage II, analysis and exploration) and the empirical findings, we came to the

conclusion that the common denominator in the three principles was the concept of

reflexivity. Reflexivity, as Thompson and Pascal (2012) argue, is premised on self-analysis,

which they view as a key factor in critically reflective practice. In the light of this, we

merged these three principles into a new principle, namely facilitating reflexivity. All

quotes related to the new principle were pasted into one document and re-coded.

Almost all quotes relating to the design principle ‘increasing ownership’ referred to the

culture of the learning configuration, fostering an increasing sense of responsibility or

ownership in the students. Following Billett (2011), we concluded that learners who are

participating in a community of professional workers need to be (or become) pro-active

and agentic learners. Therefore ‘increasing ownership’ was regarded as a feature of the

design principle ‘creating a learning community’. The effect of these consolidations was a

reduction from nine design principles to six.

The features of the six remaining design principles are presented in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,

8, one table per principle. The features of each principle are presented in a random order.

Relationships between features and differences in importance are not indicated or sug-

gested. For each feature, the effects on the participants (students (S) and/or faculty (F)) and

the conditions under which the effects appeared (if apparent in the data) are indicated.

Where it was obvious that the respondents did not agree with each other, this is indicated

by no consensus. If the participants mentioned that a certain feature needed improvement,

this is indicated as well.

Emerging design principles

The goal of the evaluation stage in EDR is to underpin the set of initial design principles

empirically by evaluating how they manifest themselves in practice. However, practice

itself can reveal relevant aspects of the design that were not intended or made explicit by

the designers. Some indications for new principles emerged from the data.

Many faculty members and some of the students discussed the relationships between the

learning configuration and its surroundings. This relationship did not seem to be satis-

factory. For instance, lecturers and managers within the participating education institutions

Table 3 Fostering authenticity: features, effects and conditions mentioned by students (S) and faculty (F)

Features Effects Conditions

Authentic assignment Challenging, motivating (S) Actively interested clients

Professional culture Professional behaviour (S) Respecting and living up to rulesand values (should be improved)

Being seen as a company Easy access to external experts (S) and(potential) clients (F)

–

Senior participants fromeducation and business

Feedback from both enhances quality ofwork by students (F)

Balanced participation fromeducation and business

Location in businessenvironment

Professional behaviour, appreciation (S);taken seriously by external relations (F)

Finances for the rent

Seniors and juniors ascolleagues

Taking each other more seriously (S, F) –

Integrated school/workculture

Feels like a company (S, F); feels likeschool (S, F)—no consensus

–


123

were sometimes not sufficiently informed about or committed to the learning configuration.

For example, a lecturer commented: ‘‘There is not a real connection with the partner-

schools. They all say it is fantastic what we are doing, but they don’t do anything with it;

they merely watch it from the sideline.’’ This suggests that the participants experienced a

boundary between the HLC and its surroundings. This boundary could be related to the

process of hybridisation (Akkerman and Bakker 2011), in the sense that ingredients of

established practices (i.e. school and workplace) are combined, resulting in a new practice

(the HLC) with its own boundary.

Table 4 Creating a learning community: features, effects and conditions mentioned by students (S) andfaculty (F)


Learning fromand witheach other

Useful tips and ideas (S, F) Activities for information exchangebetween teams; working inCommunities of Practice (S, F)

Ownership Taking responsibility; showing initiative (S) Making students responsible; clearexpectations; professionalenvironment; coaching (F)

Sense ofcommunity

Enjoying working and having fun at the sametime; being willing to help each other;feeling at home (S); being yourself (F)

Culture of respect; openness; genuineinterest in each other; equality;knowing each other personally

Learner equity Improved coaching of students and learning byfaculty (F)

Congruent learning activities by facultyand students, each at their own level(could be improved)

Table 5 Utilising diversity: features, effects and conditions mentioned by students (S) and faculty (F)


Working with people fromdifferent disciplines andeducation levels

Learned a lot from other disciplines; fordifferent education levels collaboration(S) and coaching (F) was sometimesdifficult

Good coaches

Learning from each other Motivation to learn; getting new ideas (S) –

Using different points of view More people = more ideas = better results(S); better learning (F)

Balanced diversity incharacteristics of teammembers

Collaboration Combining knowledge requires collaboration;dividing tasks is not enough (S);collaboration reinforces learning bycombining knowledge (F)

–

Feedback from differentpeople

Stimulates reflection and learning aboutoneself (S, F)

Feedback from peoplewith differentbackgrounds and views

Meeting new and interestingpeople

Inspiration by meeting new colleagues fromother fields (F)

–

Using each other’s strengths Everyone is challenged to contribute and feelsrespected and valued for their input (S, F)

Everyone’s input isneeded for the task

Explaining to others Understanding of task improves; becomingmore helpful, more assertive (S)

Everyone’s input isneeded for the task


123

Table 6 Inter-linking of working and learning: features, effects and conditions mentioned by students(S) and faculty (F)


New ways oflearning

Learning by doing and discussing (S);learning by collaboration (F)

–

Learning byexample

Learning by watching others work (S, F) Working in the same room

Balancestructure—letting go

Too much structure (S, F); not enoughstructure (S, F)—no consensus

–

Using a methodfor working inprojects

Efficient learning by students (F) Focus on problem first; reflect onmilestones

Using externalexpertise

Verification of information; generating newideas, inspiration (S)

Coaching and stimulating students ‘togo outside’

Balanced focusof learning

Right balance between focus on task, process,person and knowledge (F)—no consensusabout the right balance

–

Balanceworking/learningactivities

Learning activities support working activities(should not disrupt each other) (S, F)

Supportive information is timely, to-the-point, tailored to participants

Adaptiveinterventions

Interventions when needed, not too ad hoc (S,F)

Underlying educational concepts andinstruments

Increasinglycomplex tasks

First learning ‘how it works here’ duringeasier tasks works well (S)

Efficiency; saving enough time for themost complex assignment (F not surehow to accomplish this)

Guidingstudents’learning

Very helpful (S) Different senior roles: coach, client’srepresentative, expert

Table 7 Facilitating reflexivity: features, effects and conditions mentioned by students (S) and faculty (F)


Assessment forlearning

Thinking about what is learned (S) Setting goals and reflecting onlearning with coach

Focus onperson

Understanding behaviour of oneself and others;consciously making more future-oriented choices;growing as a whole person (S)

Facilitating individual personaland professional development

Reflection onaction

Taking responsibility for learning; wanting toimprove and live up to expectations (S)

Tools for and dialogue aboutfeedback

Reflection inaction

Continually thinking about what we do and why (S) Feedback from practice;immediate adjustment andimprovement

Connectivityschoolprogramme

Learning outcomes compatible with studyprogramme (S)

Clear communication withschool; relevant assignmentsfrom clients


123

Hence a possible new principle emerged which calls for the learning configuration to be

in tune with its surroundings, bridging the boundary with its partner institutions and other

stakeholders, such as (potential) clients. This design principle could be called ‘enabling

ecology’,

Another issue mentioned by several faculty members involved the participants in the

learning configuration and their incentive to be involved. For students, it did not seem to

matter how well they had been performing in their own study programme so far; some

‘weak’ students appeared to blossom in this learning environment. The performance

requirements, however, did seem to be a motivating factor. Some of the students for whom

no particular learning outcomes were required by their own study programme did not seem

to be as motivated as either the students who did have requirements from their own

programme or those who joined the study with their own set of learning outcomes. One

faculty member from industry lost some of his motivation when he could not meet his own

goal: ‘‘I notice a de-motivation because I am not going to reach my goal here, which is to

apply the Value in the Valley concept to a business environment.’’ This issue can be

viewed as a feature of the new principle of ‘enabling ecology’: balanced performance

requirements. The relevant balance would have to be struck both within and outside the

learning configuration.

A third issue mentioned by several faculty members was the need to be creative and

innovative and to remain that way. This was viewed as important because a knowledge

worker requires a learning and working environment that is not stagnant. The following

two threats to creativity and innovativeness were mentioned: task differentiation and the

routine performance of tasks. Participants said: ‘‘After several iterations, we know how to

do the workshop on innovation.’’ This call for innovativeness seems paradoxical in the

following way. In order to develop and improve the learning configuration, one must keep

what works well, but ‘what works well’ should not become either too routine or the task of

a single person. In order to address these issues, an extra feature of ‘enabling organisation’

might be introduced, namely, ongoing innovation.

Table 8 Enabling organisation: features, effects and conditions mentioned by students (S) and faculty (F)


Facilitatingworking andlearning

Being creative as well as organised (F) Small community; ‘face-to-face time’,flexible organisation structure

Sharingphysicalspace

Easy contact students and faculty; knowingwho has which expertise; learning byexample (S, F)

Students and faculty working in thesame room

Connectivitystakeholders

Participating institutions involved andcommitted (also financially) (F)

Shared vision and concepts;communication tailored to differentstakeholders (needs improvement)

Learningorganisation

On-going development and innovation (F) Research, reflection, monitoring andevaluation (not: routine,specialisation, differentiation oftasks)

Explicit culture Coaching on cultural aspects (F) Making culture explicit whenintroducing new participants


123

Stage IV: drawing conclusions

The findings presented in the previous section indicate how the initial design principles

manifested themselves in practice as perceived by the participants. Three of the initial

design principles (‘facilitating reflection’ ‘enhancing individual talents’ and ‘assessing for

learning’) were merged into a new one: ‘facilitating reflexivity’. The remaining set of six

design principles was refined with features, effects and conditions. The new principle

‘enabling ecology’ was added to the initial set of principles. A feature of this principle is

‘balanced performance requirements’. Also a new feature for the principle ‘enabling

organisation’ emerged: ongoing innovation. Table 9 shows the initial as well as the refined

design principles and their description.

With the knowledge of how the initial design principles were enacted in practice, we are

now able to generate an answer to the main research question: Which set of principles can

underpin the design of a hybrid learning configuration for educating the knowledge

worker? We operationalised the research question (EDR stage I) by defining four desirable

outcomes, namely, that the learning processes that should be evoked by the HLC: self-

directed learning, authentic learning, the development of a professional identity, and

creating knowledge collaboratively across boundaries. In doing so, we connect the

empirical data with the intentions of the design.

Table 9 Initial and refined design principles

Initial designprinciples

Refined designprinciples

Description



Working/learning environment (context, tasks, activities,roles, and communication) reflects working practice, aprofessional working culture and organisation

2. Creating a learningcommunity

2. Creating a learningcommunity

Community: every member should experience a sense ofbelonging to the community

Learner equity: every member of the community is alearner, each at his/her level

3. Increasingownership

4. Utilising diversity 3. Utilising diversity Diversity is built-in, valued and utilised both at team andorganizational levels and in internal and externalnetworks

5. Inter-linking ofworking andlearning

4. Inter-linking ofworking andlearning

Participants learn by performing real life tasks supportedby educational interventions that are attuned to the taskand to the individual learner, inter-linking working andlearning

6. Facilitatingreflection

5. Facilitatingreflexivity

Participants learn by reflection on their tasks andexperiences as a person, team and organisation

Critical events in the working activities are the startingpoint for reflection and learning

7. Enhancingindividual talents

8. Assessing forlearning



The organisational structure and culture supports theworking process, knowledge creation and sharing atevery level (individual, team, organisation, society)

7. Enabling ecology The learning configuration is attuned to its surroundings,which includes partner organisations and otherstakeholders


123

In order to answer the research question, we critically evaluated the features of the

refined design principles (Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) for indications of occurrences of these

learning processes, and we provide exemplary interview quotes from which these features

were drawn. The relevant design principles are referred to in italics. First, we investigate to

what extent ‘self-directed learning’ seemed to be realised. Second, we address ‘authentic

learning’ and discuss ‘the development of a professional identity’. Next, we discuss

‘creating new knowledge collaboratively across boundaries’. Last, we draw conclusions

with respect to the main research question.

Self-directed learning

Self-directed learning is defined here as pro-active or autonomous learning (Candy 1991;

Knowles 1975). It can be described as a cyclical process consisting of five stages: diag-

nosing learning needs, goal setting, planning activities, monitoring progress and evaluating

the extent to which a learning goal has been attained (Cremers et al. 2014).

Some of these stages were apparent from the data. The students set their learning goals,

reflected on their progress and evaluated what they had learned. This was facilitated by

coaching, feedback from faculty and peers and a procedure for personal professional

development (facilitating reflexivity). A student’s comment on coaching was: ‘‘If someone

tells you that you are good at something you want to keep being good at it. And you want

to work on things you’re not good at.’’

In general, students were not pro-active learners when they started. Over the course of

each iteration, the students gradually began to take more responsibility for their working

and learning (creating a learning community). ‘‘If you want to achieve something here, you

have to take action’’ was a relevant comment by one of the students. A lecturer stated:

‘‘Not everyone, but most of the students start taking initiative once they discover that it is

up to them to make it work here.’’

The principle creating a learning community seemed to have the effect of the students

feeling at home and ‘‘being themselves’’, which enhanced their motivation for working and

learning pro-actively within the learning configuration. It is also plausible that reflection

was enhanced by a safe atmosphere. Faculty mentioned ‘‘being genuinely interested in

each other’’, ‘‘knowing each other’’ and ‘‘taking each other seriously’’ as important

conditions.

The faculty did not agree about how much the students should be guided or left to their

own devices (inter-linking working and learning). Some argued that most is learnt when

things go wrong, whereas others were striving for a balance between guidance and self-

direction in order to achieve an efficient learning process. They did agree that providing

clear expectations and being a coach rather than an instructor are important success factors

for self-directed learning. Faculty stressed the importance of individual coaching and the

need to make the procedure of personal professional development (assessment for learn-

ing) more transparent and explicit.

It follows that the students’ learning can be characterised as self-directed to a modest

extent.

Authentic learning

The data suggest that authentic learning occurred in several ways. First, working on

assignments from real clients motivated the students to work on the task (fostering au-

thenticity). As a student put it: ‘‘It is really nice to know that someone will actually use the


123

results.’’ Students actively looked for information within and outside the learning con-

figuration (inter-linking working and learning). One student said about this external focus:

‘‘You have to be more social here, you have to ask questions to people you don’t know.’’

According to one lecturer, this was facilitated ‘‘because the students are taken seriously by

the client, by us and because Value in the Valley is seen as a company by the outside

world’’ (fostering authenticity).

Students also learned from observing faculty at work (inter-linking working and

learning, enabling organisation). They mentioned the following in their interviews:

watching faculty members guide the student teams, witnessing a presentation or a tele-

phone call, and attending a workshop from an expert. It follows that a certain kind of

master-apprentice learning occurred. The faculty, however, did not work on the same

projects as the students. They did not model the specific task for the students but were

professional role models in a more general way. One student mentioned in the interview

that he would have liked to collaborate with the faculty because ‘‘… that way, we would

really have become colleagues’’. Another student was satisfied that faculty members from

business supported students in their project (fostering authenticity): ‘‘Here people from

practice think with us about our project; we get tips from business people.’’

The faculty did not agree on how best to balance the learning focus between knowledge,

personal development, tasks and working procedures, and communication (inter-linking

working and learning).

Developing a professional identity

Three aspects of students’ development of a professional identity were apparent from the

data. First, several students reported that they now know how a company works, even

though most of them recognised that the learning configuration was not a real company in

every way (fostering authenticity). They also started to behave in a more professional way

by, for instance, ‘‘talking more decently’’, as one student put it, ‘‘dressing properly for

meetings with clients’’, ‘‘answering the telephone and receiving guests in a professional

way’’ and ‘‘communicating about and keeping appointments’’.

Second, students mentioned that they got to know themselves and others better, and they

indicated that this made them both understand others better and react to them differently

(facilitating reflexivity). Reflecting on what they learned (or obviously had not learned yet),

seemed to make the students think more consciously about their future. For instance, they

talked about what kind of role they would or would not like to play (e.g. project manager)

in their future job, whether they would continue studying or start working after they

finished their studies, and in which field they would like to work. Many students found

‘sustainable development’ to be a very broad and interesting field, while others said that

they were firmly committed to their choice for a career in their original field of study.

These comments show that most students seemed to have developed, to some extent, their

identity as a person in relation to their studies or future career.

Creating knowledge collaboratively, across boundaries

An indication that new knowledge was created by collaborating in an interdisciplinary way

(utilising diversity) was found in students’ comments such as ‘‘We needed each other’s

knowledge to achieve a result’’ and ‘‘Here the project is more together, not divided into

separate parts that you throw together in the end; you have to discuss with each other

constantly’’. The interdisciplinarity of the teams (provided that each discipline was needed


123

for the task to be carried out) seemed to enhance or trigger the following processes as well:

a motivation to learn (‘‘If others in my team can make telephone calls with clients, I should

be able to do that as well’’), getting to know oneself better (‘‘I get feedback from people

from different backgrounds who see things differently’’) and becoming more assertive. One

lecturer stated: ‘‘Students become more assertive, because each student has something to

contribute from his own background, so they are challenged to bring forward their own

point of view.’’ Faculty reported that, in some cases, intensive coaching was required to

achieve empowerment and to prevent a downward spiral of conflict resulting in negative

behaviour in the student teams. Therefore, guiding students’ learning (inter-linked working

and learning) seems to be an important condition for creating knowledge by multidisci-

plinary and ‘multi-level’ collaboration.

Conclusions

In summary, the principles ‘fostering authenticity’, ‘inter-linking working and learning’

and ‘facilitating reflexivity’ seemed to enhance authentic, self-directed learning and the

development of a professional identity. The collaborative creation of knowledge across the

boundaries of disciplines was reflected strongly in the principle ‘utilising diversity’.

The data suggest a strong interconnection between the design principles. For instance,

the principle of ‘utilising diversity’ appeared to enhance reflection and the motivation to

learn. This, in turn, seemed to enhance the inter-linked working and learning that was

needed in order to achieve knowledge creation, which occurred via interdisciplinary and

multi-level collaboration. The principles ‘creating a learning community’ and ‘enabling

organisation’ and the new principle ‘enabling ecology’ can be viewed as providing the

necessary context for the other principles to be effective.

Thus, it seems justified to conclude that this set of design principles can indeed be

thought to underpin the design of a HLC for educating the knowledge worker.

Discussion and further research

Ideally, in EDR, the practical goals and research questions are set at the beginning of the

project by the researcher in collaboration with the practitioners. After this stage, a set of

initial design principles is developed and implemented. These principles are then evaluated

and refined after every iteration. In this case, however, the project began with general

theoretical perspectives and the ‘craft wisdom’ of the designers. During the first iterations

of design and implementation, the underlying assumptions and theories gradually became

more explicit, which resulted in a set of initial design principles.

Iterations 4, 5 and 6 were based on these design principles and were evaluated. Because

there was not much time between the iterations, the results of this evaluation were not

directly put into practice in the next iteration. In addition, conclusions about the workings

of the principles in practice were not drawn until after the end of the project. However,

because the changes from one iteration to the next were minor and because every design

principle was enacted in every iteration, we believe that we were justified in using the

evaluation results of three consecutive iterations to reach our conclusions.

In this study, we explored how participants in a learning configuration experienced the

manifestations of educational design principles in practice. It is possible that participants did

not recognise all manifestations of the underlying design. For instance, few students


123

commented on the design principle ‘enabling organisation’, possibly because they did not have

a good idea of what an organisation entails. Also, lecturers might have different conceptions of

how a design principle is or should be put into operation within the learning configuration.

In addition to giving a voice to the perspectives of the different participants (students

and faculty), a ‘member check’ (Guba 1981) could have increased ecological validity and

demonstrated whether the conclusions drawn were credible or ‘ring true’ to those who

provided the data.

Another issue to take into account is the interdependence and coherence of the design

principles. As indicated in our conclusion, the data revealed relations between the design

principles. This implies that conclusions drawn about individual design principles always

need to be considered in relation to the other principles. This interdependence also became

apparent because certain features seemed to be related to more than one design principle.

For instance, a feature of ‘enabling organisation’ was ‘sharing physical space’. Although

this feature can be seen as an organizational issue, it can also be viewed from the per-

spective of ‘creating a learning community’ because working together in one room could

be expected to enhance a sense of community. Thus we conclude that, in line with San-

doval (2014), features of a learning environment can be inspired by multiple design

principles. For the sake of reducing complexity, we chose to attribute each feature to the

design principle that seemed to be most directly linked to it.

Two kinds of overall outcomes often measured in EDR are learning results and the

usability of the intervention as a whole. Although these overall outcomes were not mea-

sured systematically in this study, other studies (e.g. Cremers and Hekman 2010) suggest

that the students’ learning results were in line with the intended learning outcomes and that

both students and faculty enjoyed working and learning at the HLC. Interview data from

this study seem to confirm this. Students seem to value the combination of ‘‘working

seriously’’ within an informal atmosphere. Faculty often commented that the HLC offered

a pleasant working environment and many opportunities for learning and developing

themselves further as educators.

This study provides a set of design principles that, in this particular setting, appear to

enhance authentic, self-directed learning as well as the development of a professional

identity and the collaborative creation of knowledge across boundaries of disciplines,

professions and perspectives. The set of design principles was presented here together with

related features, effects and conditions. The features exemplify how the design principles

can be applied, which enables other designers to utilise the principles in accordance with

their own situation. In this way, the set of design principles can facilitate collaborative

knowledge building for a wide range of communities that design and explore HLCs.

It follows that a logical direction for further research would be to monitor and test the

utilisation of the design principles in other contexts with different features (Andriessen

2007; Kali 2006). In addition, further research could be aimed at revealing the underlying

mechanisms that explain why a certain feature or intervention produces a certain effect or

outcome (Denyer et al. 2008). This additional design knowledge would extend and deepen

our understanding of how to design HLCs for the knowledge worker.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the faculty and students of Value in the Valley for theirvaluable and inspiring contributions to this research project.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Inter-national License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and thesource, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.


123

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References

Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of EducationalResearch, 81(2), 132–169.

Andriessen, D. (2007). Designing and testing an OD intervention. The Journal of Applied BehavioralScience, 43(1), 89–107.

Antonides, E. H., & Hoetink, F. (2005). Projectplan value in the Valley, energie om te leren. Groningen:Alfa-college.

Billett, S. (1996). Situated learning: Bridging sociocultural and cognitive theorising. Learning andInstruction, 6(3), 263–280.

Billett, S. (2002). Toward a workplace pedagogy: Guidance, participation, and engagement. Adult EducationQuarterly, 53(1), 27–43.

Billett, S. (2004). Learning through work: Workplace participatory practices. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & A.Munro (Eds.), Workplace learning in context (pp. 109–125). London: Routledge.

Billett, S. (2011). Integrating experiences in workplace and university settings: A conceptual perspective. InS. Billett & A. Henderson (Eds.), Developing learning professional (pp. 21–40). London: Springer.

Billet, S., & Somerville, M. (2004). Transformations at work: Identity and learning. Studies in ContinuingEducation, 26(2), 309–326.

Boud, D. (2007). Reframing assessment as if learning were important. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.),Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 14–25). London:Routledge.

Bromme, R., & Tillema, H. (1995). Fusing experience and theory: The structure of professional knowledge.Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 261–267.

Bronkhorst, L. H., Meijer, P. C., Koster, B., Akkerman, S. F., & Vermunt, J. D. (2013). Consequentialresearch designs in research on teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 90–99.

Brooker, R., & Macdonald, D. (1999). Did we hear you?: Issues of student voice in a curriculum innovation.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(1), 83–97.

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learningenvironments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovationsin learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. EducationalResearcher, 18(1), 32–42.

Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cremers, P. H. M., & Hekman, E. G. A. (2010). Value in the Valley, evaluatie van het leerarrangement.Groningen: Value in the Valley.

Cremers, P. H. M., Wals, A. E. J., Wesselink, R., Nieveen, N., & Mulder, M. (2014). Self-directed lifelonglearning in hybrid learning configurations. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(2), 207–232.

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, rationality and the human brain. New York: Putnam.De Bruijn, E., & Leeman, Y. (2010). Authentic and self-directed learning in vocational education: Chal-

lenges to vocational educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 694–702.De Putter-Smits, L. G. A., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2013). Mapping context-based learning

environments: The construction of an instrument. Learning Environments Research, 16(3), 437–462.Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & Van Aken, J. E. (2008). Developing design propositions through research

synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3), 393–413.Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice.

New York: Macmillan Publishing.Engestrom, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in

practice. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp.377–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Etelapelto, A., Vahasantanen, K., Hokka, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizingprofessional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45–65.

Frey, J. H., & Fontana, A. (1991). The group interview in social research. The Social Science Journal, 28(2),175–187.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., & Nowotny, H. (1997). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics ofscience and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.

Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage Publications.Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Inter-

national Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–31.


123

Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J. Van denAkker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 17–51).New York: Routledge.

Griffiths, T., & Guile, D. (2003). A connective model of learning: The implications for work processknowledge. European Educational Research Journal, 2(1), 56–73.

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Tech-nology Research and Development, 29(2), 75–91.

Guile, D., & Griffiths, T. (2001). Learning through work experience. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1),113–131.

Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. New York:Teachers College Press.

Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.

Huisman, J., De Bruijn, E., Baartman, L., Zitter, I., & Aalsma, E. (2010). Leren in hybride leeromgevingenin het beroepsonderwijs. Praktijkverkenning, theoretische verdieping. Utrecht: ExpertisecentrumBeroepsonderwijs.

Illeris, K. (2002). The three dimensions of learning: Contemporary learning theory in the tension fieldbetween the cognitive, the emotional and the social. Copenhagen: Roskilde University Press.

Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge building using the design principles database. InternationalJournal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187–201.

Kali, Y., Levin-Peled, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). The role of design-principles in designing courses thatpromote collaborative learning in higher-education. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1067–1078.

Kessels, J. W. M. (2001). Learning in organisations: A corporate curriculum for the knowledge economy.Futures, 33(6), 497–506.

Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Chicago: Follett.Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Konings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2007). Teachers’ perspectives on inno-

vations: Implications for educational design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 985–997.Lakkala, M., Ilomaki, L., Paavola, S., Kosonen, K., & Muukonen, H. (2012). Using trialogical design

principles to asssess pedagogcial practices in two higher education courses. In A. Moen, A. I. Morch, &S. Paavola (Eds.), Collaborative knowledge creation: Practices, tools, concepts (pp. 141–162). Rot-terdam: Sense Publishers.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Oxford: Routledge.McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & Van den Akker, J. (2006). Design research from a curriculum perspective. In

J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research(pp. 67–90). New York: Routledge.

Meijers, F., & Wardekker, W. (2001). Ontwikkelen van een arbeidsidentiteit. In J. W. M. Kessels & R.F. Poell (Eds.), Human resources development: Organiseren van het leren (pp. 301–317). Alphen aanden Rijn: Samsom.

Mentkowski, M., Rogers, G., Doherty, A., Loacker, G., Hart, J. R., Rickards, W., et al. (2000). Learning thatlasts: Integrating learning, development, and performance in college and beyond. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create thedynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities andthree metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.

Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S.L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp.259–282). New York: Springer.

Poortman, C. L. (2007). Workplace learning processes in senior secondary vocational education. Enschede,The Netherlands: Universiteit Twente.

Rogoff, B., Matusov, E., & White, C. (Eds.). (1996). Models of teaching and learning: Participation in acommunity of learners. Oxford: Blackwell.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2006). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.


123

Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journalof the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36.

Savin-Baden, M., & Howell Major, C. (2010). New approaches to qualitative research: Wisdom anduncertainty. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.

Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. EducationalResearcher, 33(2), 12–20.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1993). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal ofthe Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York:

Random House.Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational

Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.Strauser, D. R., Lustig, D. C., & Ciftci, A. (2008). Psychological well-being: Its relation to work personality,

vocational identity, and career thoughts. The Journal of Psychology, 142(1), 21–35.Thompson, N., & Pascal, J. (2012). Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective Practice: Interna-

tional and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 13(2), 311–325.Tynjala, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional

learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(5),357–442.

Tynjala, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2),130–154.

Tynjala, P. (2009). Connectivity and transformation in work-related learning: Theoretical foundations. InM.-L. Stenstrom & P. Tynjala (Eds.), Towards integration of work and learning (pp. 11–37). Dor-drecht: Springer Science ? Business Media.

Tynjala, P., Valimaa, J., & Sarja, A. (2003). Pedagogical perspectives on the relationships between highereducation and working life. Higher Education, 46(2), 147–166.

Van den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. Van den Akker, W. Kuiper, & U.Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1–10). Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2006). Educational designresearch. New York: Routledge.

Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Sluijsmans, D. M. A. (2009). Toward a synthesis of cognitive load theory, four-component instructional design, and self-directed learning. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1),55–66.

Walker, D., & Nocon, H. (2007). Boundary-crossing competence: Theoretical considerations and educa-tional design. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(3), 178–195.

Wals, A. E. J. (1994). Pollution stinks: Young adolescents’ perceptions of nature and environmental issueswith implications for education in urban settings. De Lier: Academic Book Center.

Wals, A. E. J., & Alblas, A. H. (1997). School based research and development of environmental education:A case study. Environmental Education Research, 3(3), 253–267.

Wals, A. E. J., Lans, T., & Kupper, H. (2012). Blurring the boundaries between vocational education,business and research in the agri-food domain. Journal of Vocational Education, and Training, 64(1),3–23.

Wesselink, R., Dekker-Groen, H. M., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2010). Using an instrument toanalyse competence-based study programmes: Experiences of teachers in Dutch vocational educationand training. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(6), 813–829.

Wierenga, E. M. W., Cremers, P. H. M., Hekman, E. G. A., & Buikema, H. (2010). Value in the Valley, hetleerarrangement in de praktijk. Groningen: Value in the Valley.

Zegwaard, K. E., & Coll, R. K. (2011). Exploring some current issues for cooperative education. Journal ofCooperative Education and Internship, 45(2), 8–15.

Zitter, I. (2010). Designing for learning: Studying learning environments in higher professional educationfrom a design perspective. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.

Zitter, I., & Hoeve, A. (2012). Hybrid learning environments: Merging learning and work processes tofacilitate knowledge integration and transitions (OECD Education Working Papers 81). Paris: OECDPublishing.


123

Design principles for hybrid learning configurations …...ORIGINAL PAPER Design principles for...

Documents

Transcript of Design principles for hybrid learning configurations …...ORIGINAL PAPER Design principles for...